Bot: list chats

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the sort order and the fact that unread count and last message are included, which is mild extra context, but it says nothing about pagination behavior or how the limit interacts with the result set.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core listing behavior front-loaded ahead of the usage hint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple annotated read tool with an output schema already covering return values and a fully documented single parameter, the description is essentially complete. It stops short of a 5 only because it is silent on pagination/large-result behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (limit) and schema description coverage is 100% ('Max chats.' plus min/max/default), so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds no constraint or format detail about limit, making this the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (chats this bot has talked in), plus ordering (newest first) and returned fields (unread count, last message). It is distinguishable from bot_get_chat (single chat) and bot_search_messages, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it lands just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use to find chat ids' implies the use case but offers no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to alternatives like bot_get_chat or bot_search_messages. Usage is suggested rather than specified.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.